alert_list

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the operation as read-only, lists returned fields, and explains the truncation behavior (reports returned, limit, truncated). However, it omits details like sorting order, authentication requirements, or performance characteristics.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is extremely concise: a single-line purpose followed by three short parameter descriptions. It is front-loaded with the '[READ]' tag and core purpose, with no filler or redundant information. Every sentence adds value.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the absence of an output schema, the description adequately covers return fields and truncation metadata. However, it could be more complete by including typical response structure (e.g., whether results are batched, total count) and constraints like maximum limit. Still, it provides sufficient context for a list tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

All three parameters are explained beyond the schema (which has 0% description coverage). 'severity' is clarified with an example and omission behavior; 'limit' explains default, meaning, and truncation reporting; 'target' describes its origin and default. The description fully compensates for the schema's lack of parameter descriptions.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: '[READ] List alerts' with specific fields returned (extId, title, severity, impact, ack/resolved, affected entity). This distinguishes it from sibling alert actions (analyze_alert, alert_acknowledge, alert_resolve) and other entity list tools.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description includes a '[READ]' tag implying read-only usage, but no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention when not to use or provide comparisons to sibling list tools (e.g., event_list, audit_list), leaving the agent to infer context.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.